1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{longtable}

6: \usepackage{epsf}

7: \usepackage{apjfonts}

8: \usepackage{mathptmx}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

11: \newcommand{\myemail}{danilom@astro.yale.edu}

12: 

13: \slugcomment{Received 2007 April 11; accepted 2007 May 24; published  2007 June 21}

14: 

15: \shorttitle{LFs at $z \geq 2$: observations vs. predictions}

16: \shortauthors{Marchesini \& van Dokkum}

17: 

18: \voffset=-0.8in

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \title{Assessing the Predictive Power of Galaxy Formation Models:

23: A Comparison of Predicted and Observed Rest-frame Optical

24: Luminosity Functions

25: at $2.0 \leq z \leq 3.3$}

26: 

27: \author{Danilo Marchesini\altaffilmark{1} and 

28:   Pieter G. van Dokkum\altaffilmark{1}}

29: 

30: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy; Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University, New Haven, 

31: CT, USA; \myemail}

32: 

33: \begin{abstract}

34: Recent galaxy formation models successfully reproduce the local

35: luminosity function (LF) of galaxies by invoking mechanisms to

36: suppress star formation in low- and high-mass galaxies. As these

37: models are optimized to fit the LF at low redshift, a crucial question

38: is how well they predict the LF at earlier times. Here we compare

39: recently measured rest-frame $V$-band LFs of galaxies at redshifts

40: $2.0 \leq z \leq 3.3$ to predictions of semianalytic models by

41: De Lucia \& Blaizot and Bower et al. and hydrodynamic simulations by

42: Dav\'e et al.. The models succeed for some luminosity and redshift

43: ranges and fail for others. A notable success is that the Bower et

44: al.\ model provides a good match to the observed LF at $z\sim

45: 3$. However, all models predict an increase with time of the

46: rest-frame $V$-band luminosity density, whereas the observations show

47: a decrease. The models also have difficulty matching the observed

48: rest-frame colors of galaxies. In all models the luminosity density of

49: red galaxies increases sharply from $z\sim3$ to $z\sim2.2$, whereas it

50: is approximately constant in the observations. Conversely, in the

51: models the luminosity density of blue galaxies is approximately

52: constant, whereas it decreases in the observations. These discrepancies

53: cannot be entirely remedied by changing the treatment of dust and

54: suggest that current models do not yet provide a complete description

55: of galaxy formation and evolution since $z\sim 3$.

56: \end{abstract}

57: 

58: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation --- 

59: galaxies: fundamental parameters --- \\ galaxies: high-redshift --- 

60: galaxies: luminosity function, mass function}

61: 

62: %====================================================================

63: 

64: \section{Introduction}

65: 

66: In the current paradigm of structure formation, dark matter (DM) halos

67: build up in a hierarchical fashion through the dissipationless

68: mechanism of gravitationally instability. The assembly of the stellar

69: content of galaxies is instead governed by much more complicated

70: physical processes, often dissipative and non-linear, which are

71: generally poorly understood. To counter this lack of understanding,

72: prescriptions are employed in the galaxy formation models. One of the

73: fundamental tools for constraining the physical processes encoded in 

74: these models is the luminosity function (LF), since its shape retains 

75: the imprint of galaxy formation and evolution processes.

76: 

77: The faint end of the LF can be matched with a combination of supernova

78: feedback and the suppression of gas cooling in low-mass halos due to a

79: background of photoionizing radiation (e.g., \citealt{benson02}).

80: Matching the bright end of the LF has proven more challenging. Very

81: recent implementation of active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback in 

82: semianalytic models (SAMs) has yielded exceptionally faithful 

83: reproductions of the observed local rest-frame $B$- and $K$-band global 

84: LFs (\citealt{bower06}; \citealt{croton06}; see also \citealt{granato04}), 

85: including good matches to the local rest-frame $B$-band LFs of red and 

86: blue galaxies (although with some discrepancies for faint red galaxies;

87: \citealt{croton06}).

88: 

89: The excellent agreement between observations and models at $z\sim0$ is

90: impressive but is partly due to the fact that the model parameters were

91: adjusted to obtain the best match to the local universe. A key

92: question is therefore how well these models predict the LF at earlier

93: times. The SAMs of \citet{croton06}, \citet{delucia06}, and 

94: \citet{bower06} have been compared to observations at $0<z<2$ 

95: \citep[see][]{bower06,kitzbichler06}. Although the agreement is 

96: generally good, \citet{kitzbichler06} infer that the

97: abundance of galaxies near the knee of the LF at high redshift is

98: larger in the SAMs than in the observations (except possibly for the

99: brightest objects), in an apparent reversal of previous studies (e.g.,

100: \citealt{cimatti02}). 

101: 

102: Recently, the rest-frame optical LF has been accurately measured in the

103: redshift range $2.0 \leq z \leq 3.3$, using a combination of the

104: $K$-selected MUSYC, GOODS, and FIRES surveys \citep{marchesini07}.  In

105: this Letter we compare the observed LF to that predicted by

106: theoretical models in this redshift range, in order to test the

107: predictive power of the latest generation of galaxy formation

108: models. We also compare the observed LF to predictions from smoothed 

109: particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations, which have so far only been 

110: compared to data at $z\sim6$ \citep{dave06}. We note that these 

111: comparisons are effectively the rest-frame equivalent of the test 

112: proposed by \citet{kauffmann98}. We assume $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, 

113: $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7$, and $H_{\rm 0}=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$.  

114: All magnitudes are in the AB system, while colors are on the Vega system.

115: 

116: %====================================================================

117: 

118: \section{The observed luminosity functions} \label{olf}

119: 

120: The observed rest-frame optical LFs at $z \geq2$ have been taken from

121: \citet{marchesini07}. Briefly, they presented the galaxy LFs in the

122: rest-frame $B$-band (at $2.5<z \leq 3.5$ and $2 \leq z \leq 2.5$),

123: $V$-band (at $2.7 \leq z \leq 3.3$), and $R$-band (at $2 \leq z \leq

124: 2.5$), measured from a $K$-selected sample constructed from the

125: MUltiwavelength Survey by Yale-Chile (MUSYC; \citealt{quadri06}), the

126: ultradeep Faint InfraRed Extragalactic Survey (FIRES;

127: \citealt{franx03}), and the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey

128: (GOODS; \citealt{giavalisco04}; Chandra Deep Field--South).  This

129: $K$-selected sample, comprising a total of $\sim$990 galaxies with

130: $K_{\rm s}^{\rm tot}<25$ at $2 \leq z \leq 3.5$, is unique for its

131: combination of surveyed area ($\sim$380~arcmin$^{2}$) and large range

132: of luminosities.

133: 

134: In this Letter we limit our comparison between observed and predicted

135: LFs to the rest-frame $V$ band, at the two redshift intervals $2.7

136: \leq z \leq 3.3$ (directly taken from \citealt{marchesini07}) and $2

137: \leq z \leq 2.5$ (derived in the same way as described in

138: \citealt{marchesini07}). The results are qualitatively similar for

139: other rest-frame bands.

140: 

141: %====================================================================

142: 

143: \section{The model-predicted luminosity functions} \label{plf}

144: 

145: The \citet{bower06} SAM is implemented on the Millennium DM 

146: simulation described in \citet{springel05}. The details of the 

147: assumed prescriptions and the specific parameter choices are 

148: described in \citet{cole00}, \citet{benson03}, and \citet{bower06}.

149: We have also used the outputs\footnote{Available at

150: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Millennium \citep{lemson06}; see also

151: footnote~6.}  from the SAM of \citet{croton06} as updated by

152: \citet{delucia06}.  This model differs from the SAM of \citet{bower06}

153: in many ways. The scheme for building the merger trees is different in

154: detail, as are many of the prescriptions adopted to model the baryonic

155: physics, most notably those associated with the growth of and the

156: feedback from SMBHs in galaxy nuclei and the cooling model (see

157: \citealt{kauffmann00}; \citealt{springel01}; \citealt{delucia04}; 

158: \citealt{delucia06} for details). Finally, we have compared the 

159: observed LFs with the predictions from the cosmological SPH simulations 

160: of \citet{oppenheimer06}, already used in \citet{finlator06} to 

161: constrain the physical properties of $z \sim 6$ galaxies. The key 

162: ingredient of these simulations is the inclusion of superwind feedback, 

163: critical to avoid the overprediction by the simulations of the 

164: observed global star formation rate by reducing the reservoir of gas 

165: available for star formation \citep{springel03}.  Specifically, we 

166: used the ``momentum-driven wind'' model used in Finlator et al. 

167: (2007, namely, their ``jvzw'' model; see also \citealt{oppenheimer06} 

168: for detailed descriptions). We have used the 32~h$^{-1}$~Mpc box 

169: simulation, combined with a 64~h$^{-1}$~Mpc box to better sample the 

170: bright end of the LF. We note that the key difference between the 

171: AGN feedback implementation in the SAMs and the superwind feedback is 

172: that the former does not require star formation.

173: 

174: Computing the SAM-predicted rest-frame $V$-band LFs is

175: straightforward, as the catalog is complete in the luminosity range of

176: interest and has no redshift errors\footnote{To derive the model-predicted 

177: LF in a specific redshift interval, we averaged the number of galaxies as 

178: function of rest-frame V-band magnitude (with dust modeling included) of 

179: all redshift snapshots in the targeted redshift interval.}.  We also 

180: extracted rest-frame colors of the galaxies in order to determine the LF 

181: for red and blue galaxies separately.

182: 

183: %====================================================================

184: 

185: \section{Results} \label{results}

186: 

187: The comparison between the observed rest-frame $V$-band LFs of all

188: galaxies at $2.7 \leq z \leq 3.3$ and $2 \leq z \leq 2.5$ with those

189: predicted by the theoretical models is shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}.  It

190: is immediately obvious that the models do not yet

191: provide a precise description of galaxy evolution.  Differences

192: between the various models, and discrepancies between model

193: predictions and data, are still as large as a factor of $\sim 5$ for

194: certain luminosity and redshift ranges.

195: 

196: \begin{figure}

197: \epsscale{0.95}

198: \plotone{f1.eps}

199: \caption{Comparison between the rest-frame $V$-band observed global

200: LFs and those predicted by models. The observed LFs are plotted with

201: black circles ($1/V_{\rm max}$ method) with 1~$\sigma$ error

202: bars (including field-to-field variance) and by the black solid line

203: (maximum likelihood method) with 1, 2, and 3~$\sigma$ solutions

204: ({\it gray shaded regions}). The arrow shows the observed value of

205: $M^{\star}$. Red lines show predictions from the \citet{bower06} SAM,

206: blue lines from the \citet{delucia06} SAM, and green lines from the

207: \citet{finlator06} SPH model. Poisson errors ($1~\sigma$) are shown for

208: the SPH model only, as they are very small for the SAMs. In the small

209: panels, the ratio between the predicted and the observed LFs is

210: plotted, together with the 1, 2, and 3~$\sigma$ errors for the

211: \citet{bower06} SAM ({\it gray shaded regions}). The oblique line regions 

212: delimit the comparison to the luminosity range probed by the sample 

213: of \citet{marchesini07}.

214: \label{fig1}}

215: \end{figure}

216: 

217: At $2.7 \leq z \leq 3.3$, the global LF predicted by the SAM of

218: \citet{bower06} agrees well with the observed LF, although the SAM 

219: slightly underpredicts the density of galaxies around the knee of the LF. 

220: However, while at $2 \leq z \leq 2.5$ the shape of the observed LF is 

221: broadly reproduced by

222: the SAM, the predicted characteristic density $\Phi^{\star}$ is

223: $\sim$2.5 times larger than the observed value.  The SAM of

224: \citet{delucia06} has difficulty with both the normalization and the

225: slope of the LF, which is too steep.  At $2.7 \leq z \leq 3.3$, the De

226: Lucia model matches the faint end but underpredicts (by a factor of

227: $\sim$2--4) the bright end.  At $2 \leq z \leq 2.5$, instead, the

228: predicted LF matches the bright end but overpredicts the faint end by

229: a factor of $\gtrsim 2$.  The SPH simulations of \citet{finlator06}

230: predict LFs that are qualitatively similar to those predicted by the

231: two SAMs, although the former are characterized by larger

232: uncertainties, due to the much smaller simulated volume.

233: 

234: We quantified these results by determining the luminosity density

235: $j_{\rm V}$ (obtained by integrating the LF) for the observations and

236: models.  The luminosity density is a more robust measure than

237: $M^{\star}$, $\Phi^{\star}$, and the faint-end slope $\alpha$, because

238: the errors in these parameters are highly correlated.  The observed

239: $j_{\rm V}$ ($j^{\rm obs}_{\rm V}$) has been estimated by integrating

240: the best-fit Schechter function down to $M_{\rm V}=-19.5$, which is

241: the faintest luminosity probed by the $K$-selected sample\footnote{As

242: in \citet{marchesini07} the 3~$\sigma$ error on $j_{\rm V}$ was

243: calculated by deriving the distribution of all the values of $j_{\rm

244: V}$ within the 3~$\sigma$ solutions of the Schechter LF parameters

245: from the maximum-likelihood analysis, including in quadrature a 10\%

246: contribution from photometric redshift uncertainties. Using a brighter 

247: integration limit of the LF ($M_{\rm V}=-20.4$) does not change 

248: the results of the comparison significantly.}.  To estimate

249: $j_{\rm V}$ from the SAM ($j^{\rm SAM}_{\rm V}$), we have fitted the

250: predicted LFs with a Schechter function, leaving $M^{\star}$,

251: $\Phi^{\star}$, and $\alpha$ as free parameters, applying the same

252: limits as to the data.

253: 

254: The comparison between $j^{\rm obs}_{\rm V}$ and $j^{\rm SAM}_{\rm V}$

255: of \citet{bower06} is shown in Figure~\ref{fig2} ({\it bottom panels}) by the

256: black lines and data points. The Bower SAM matches the observed

257: luminosity density at $z\sim 3$. However, the model does not match the

258: evolution of $j_{\rm V}$. In the model the luminosity increases with

259: cosmic time, by a factor of $\sim1.6$ from $z\sim3$ to $2.2$. By

260: contrast, the observed luminosity density {\em decreases} with time,

261: by a factor of $\sim1.8$ over the same redshift range. Results for the

262: De Lucia SAM are similar, but for this model the difference between

263: observed and predicted density is a strong function of the adopted

264: faint-end integration limit.

265: 

266: \begin{figure}

267: \epsscale{0.95}

268: \plotone{f2.eps}

269: \caption{{\em Top panels:} Observed luminosity density ($j^{\rm

270: obs}_{\rm V}$) as function of redshift of all ({\it black circles}),

271: red ({\it red circles}), and blue ({\it blue squares}) galaxies,

272: splitting the sample based on rest-frame $U-V$ ({\it left panels}) 

273: and $B-V$ ({\it right panels}) colors. {\em Bottom panels:} Luminosity 

274: density predicted by the SAM of \citet{bower06} ($j^{\rm SAM}_{\rm V}$) 

275: as function of redshift; symbols as in top panels; the observed evolution

276: of $j_{\rm V}$ is also plotted with dashed lines for comparison.

277: \label{fig2}}

278: \end{figure}

279: 

280: %====================================================================

281: 

282: \section{Colors}

283: 

284: We investigated the cause of the discrepancies by splitting the sample

285: into blue and red galaxies, using their rest-frame colors.  Here we

286: focus on the Bower model, as it provides the best match to the shape

287: of the global LF, and a wide range of rest-frame colors are

288: available. Interestingly, the results depend strongly on the choice of

289: color: splitting the sample by $U-V$ color (as done in

290: \citealt{marchesini07}) produces very different results than splitting

291: by $B-V$ color.

292: 

293: To define red galaxies, we first use the criterion $U-V \geq$0.25, as

294: done in \citet{marchesini07}.  As shown in the bottom left panel of

295: Figure~\ref{fig2}, the Bower model reproduces the densities of red and

296: blue galaxies at $z\sim 3$ extremely well.  The model overpredicts the

297: densities of red and blue galaxies at $z\sim 2.2$, although it

298: predicts the correct ratio between the two (roughly 1:1).

299: 

300: Next, we use the criterion $B-V \geq$0.5.\footnote{For observed

301: galaxies in the Marchesini et al.\ (2007) sample, $U-V=0.25$ roughly

302: corresponds to $B-V=0.5$.} As can be seen in the top panels of

303: Figure~\ref{fig2}, this criterion leads to very similar observed

304: densities of red and blue galaxies as the $U-V$ criterion. However,

305: the predicted densities are in severe disagreement with the

306: observations, particularly at $z\sim 3$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}, 

307: {\it bottom right panel}). The red galaxy density at $z\sim 3$ underpredicts

308: the observed density by a factor of $\sim8$.  Qualitatively similar

309: results are obtained when $j^{\rm SAM}_{\rm V}$ from the SAM of

310: \citet{delucia06} is used in the comparison.\footnote{The De Lucia

311: model provides $B-V$ colors, but no $U-V$ colors.}

312: 

313: Irrespective of the color criterion that is used, we find that the

314: predicted {\em evolution} of the red and blue luminosity densities is

315: in qualitative disagreement with the observed evolution.  In the

316: observations, the moderate evolution of the luminosity density is

317: mainly driven by a decrease with cosmic time of the density of blue

318: galaxies, with the red galaxies evolving much less (see also

319: \citealt{brammer07}).  By contrast, in the SAMs, the moderate

320: evolution seen in the global LF is in the opposite sense and

321: dominated by a strong evolution in the red galaxy population.

322: 

323: %====================================================================

324: 

325: \section{Discussion} \label{disc}

326: 

327: The main results of our comparison between the observed and the

328: model-predicted rest-frame $V$-band LFs of galaxies at $z \geq 2$ are 

329: (1) the SAM of \citet{bower06} reproduces well the observed LF at 

330: $z\sim 3$; (2) the models predict an increase with time of the

331: rest-frame $V$-band luminosity density, whereas the observations show

332: a decrease; (3) the models predict strong evolution in the red galaxy

333: population, whereas in the observations most of the evolution is in

334: the blue population; (4) the models greatly underpredict the abundance

335: of galaxies with $B-V \geq0.5$ at $z\sim 3$.

336: 

337: \begin{figure*}

338: \epsscale{0.95}

339: \plotone{f3.eps}

340: \caption{$B-V$ vs $U-B$ comparison between observations ({\it open circles}) 

341: and predictions from the SAM of Bower et al. (2006, {\it gray shaded regions}) 

342: in the two targeted redshift intervals. The error bars in the

343: top left corner represent the median errors on the observed

344: colors. The filled triangles with error bars represent the mean colors

345: of the observed galaxies and the error on the mean. The yellow,

346: orange, and red lines show the evolutionary tracks described in

347: \S~\ref {disc} (CSF, $\tau$300, and SSP models, from top to bottom)

348: with $A_{\rm V}$=0, 1, and 2, respectively.  The tracks are plotted

349: from 50~Myr to the age of the universe at the lower limit of the

350: targeted redshift range. The cyan, blue, and purple lines show the

351: evolution of the colors after a burst of star formation, for the three

352: values of $A_{\rm V}$, respectively. The arrow indicates the

353: extinction vector for $A_{\rm V}$=1. The dashed lines correspond to

354: $B-V$=0.5 and $U-B=(U-V)-(B-V)=0.25-0.5=-0.25$. Observed galaxies have

355: redder $B-V$ colors than predicted, possibly due to additional dust

356: and/or secondary star bursts.

357: \label{fig3}}

358: \end{figure*}

359: 

360: The different results obtained for $U-V$ and $B-V$ colors are

361: interesting, as they may hint at possible ways to improve the models.

362: We further investigate the disagreement between observed and predicted

363: colors in the SAM of \citet{bower06} in Figure~\ref{fig3}, which shows

364: the comparison of observations and predictions in the $B-V$ versus

365: $U-B$ diagram. While the SAM seems to broadly reproduce the observed

366: $U-B$ distribution, it predicts galaxies that are systematically bluer

367: in $B-V$ than the observed galaxies.  We have plotted

368: evolutionary tracks of stellar population synthesis models constructed

369: with the \citet{bruzual03} code, assuming three different

370: prescriptions for the star formation history (SFH): a constant SFH

371: (CSF), an exponentially declining in time SFH characterized by the

372: parameter $\tau=300$~Myr ($\tau$300), and an instantaneous burst model

373: (SSP). We selected the ``Padova 1994'' evolutionary tracks, solar

374: metallicity, the \citet{chabrier03} initial mass function with lower

375: and upper mass cutoffs 0.1~M$_{\sun}$ and 100~M$_{\sun}$, and modeled

376: the extinction by dust using the attenuation law of

377: \citet{calzetti00}. A new burst of star formation lasting 100~Myr and

378: contributing 20\% to the mass is also added at $t=2.1 \times

379: 10^{9}$~yr ($t=2.9 \times 10^{9}$~yr) at $z\sim3$ ($z\sim2.2$) to

380: explore more complex SFHs.

381: 

382: As can be deduced from Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the differences between

383: observed and predicted colors could be due to larger amount of dust

384: and/or to more complex SFHs in the observed galaxies. The ad hoc

385: treatment of dust absorption is a significant and well-known source of

386: uncertainty in the models.  Modifications to the specific dust model

387: could partly resolve the differences between observations and SAM

388: predictions. By simply multiplying the $A_{\rm V}$ in the SAM by a

389: fixed factor, we were able to better reproduce the observed LFs at

390: $z\sim2.2$ (although making the faint-end slope of the red galaxy LFs

391: quantitatively too steep) and to have a better agreement between

392: observed and predicted colors. However, at $z\sim3$ this simple remedy

393: is not able to solve the disagreement between the predicted and the 

394: observed number of $B-V \geq 0.5$ galaxies. We conclude that, while ad 

395: hoc modifications of the dust treatment might help to alleviate some 

396: of the found disagreements, it does not seem to be sufficient to 

397: accommodate the problem with global colors at $z\sim3$.

398: 

399: While our ability to simulate galaxy formation has greatly improved in

400: the past few years, our results imply that the present understanding

401: of the physical processes at work in galaxy formation and evolution is

402: still far from being satisfactory. On the observational side, more

403: accurate redshift and color estimates would benefit studies of this

404: kind.  The lack of spectroscopic redshifts is particularly worrying,

405: as systematic errors in redshift will lead to systematic errors in

406: colors and luminosities (e.g., \citealt{kriek06}; M. Kriek et al. 2007, 

407: in preparation).

408: 

409: %====================================================================

410: 

411: \acknowledgments

412: 

413: We are grateful to G.\ De Lucia (the referee) and G.\ Lemson for 

414: assistance with the Millennium Simulation database and helpful 

415: clarifications. We thank K.\ Finlator and R.\ Dav\'e for making 

416: available their SPH simulations, and R.\ Bower for his help with 

417: obtaining the Bower et al.\ (2006) predictions. D.M. is supported 

418: by NASA LTSA NNG04GE12G. The authors acknowledge support from 

419: NSF CARRER AST~04-49678.  The Millennium Simulation databases used 

420: in this Letter and the Web application providing online access to 

421: them were constructed as part of the activities of the German 

422: Astrophysical Virtual Observatory.

423: 

424: %====================================================================

425: 

426: \begin{thebibliography}{}

427: 

428: \bibitem[Benson et al. (2003)]{benson03} Benson, A. J., Bower, R. G., Frenk, C. S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., \& Cole, S. 2003, \apj, 599, 38

429: \bibitem[Benson et al. (2002)]{benson02} Benson, A. J., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S. 2002, \mnras, 333, 156

430: \bibitem[Bower et al. (2006)]{bower06} Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., Helly, J. C., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., \& Lacey, C. G. 2006, \mnras, 370, 654

431: \bibitem[Brammer \& van Dokkum (2007)]{brammer07} Brammer, G. B., \& van Dokkum, P. 2007, \apj, 654, L107

432: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot (2003)]{bruzual03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000

433: \bibitem[Calzetti et al. (2000)]{calzetti00} Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R.C., Kinney, A. L., Koornneed, J., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2000, \apj, 533, 682

434: \bibitem[Chabrier (2003)]{chabrier03} Chabrier, G. 2003, \pasp, 115, 763

435: \bibitem[Cimatti et al. (2002)]{cimatti02} Cimatti, A., et al. 2002, \aap, 391, L1

436: \bibitem[Cole et al. (2000)]{cole00} Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., \& Frenk, C. S. 2000, \mnras, 319,168

437: \bibitem[Croton et al. (2006)]{croton06} Croton, D.~J., et al. 2006, \mnras, 365, 11

438: \bibitem[Dav\'e et al. (2006)]{dave06} Dav\'e, R., Finlator, K., \& Oppenheimer, D. 2006, \mnras, 370, 273

439: \bibitem[De Lucia \& Blaizot (2007)]{delucia06} De Lucia, G., \& Blaizot, J. 2007, \mnras, 375, 2

440: \bibitem[De Lucia et al. (2004)]{delucia04} De Lucia, G., Kauffmann, G., \& White, S. D. M. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1101

441: \bibitem[Finlator et al. (2007)]{finlator06} Finlator, K., Dav\'e, R., \& Oppenheimer, B. D. 2007, \mnras ~in press

442: \bibitem[Franx et al. (2003)]{franx03} Franx, M., et al. 2003, \apj, 587, L79

443: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{giavalisco04} Giavalisco, M., et al. 2004, \apj, 600, L93

444: \bibitem[Granato et al.(2004)]{granato04} Granato, G.L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L. 2004, \apj, 600, 580

445: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Charlot (1998)]{kauffmann98} Kauffmann, G., \& Charlot, S. 1998, \mnras, 297, L23

446: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Haehnelt (2000)]{kauffmann00} Kauffmann, G., \& Haehnelt, M. 2000, \mnras, 311, 576

447: \bibitem[Kitzbichler \& White (2007)]{kitzbichler06} Kitzbichler, M. G., \& White, S. D. M. 2007, \mnras, 376, 2

448: \bibitem[Kriek et al. (2006)]{kriek06} Kriek, M., et al. 2006, \apj, 649, L71

449: \bibitem[Lemson (2006)]{lemson06} Lemson, G., et al. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0608019)

450: \bibitem[Marchesini et al.(2007)]{marchesini07} Marchesini, D. et al. 2007, \apj, 656, 42

451: \bibitem[Oppenheimer \& Dav\'e (2006)]{oppenheimer06} Oppenheimer, B. D., \& Dav\'e, R. 2006, \mnras, 373, 1265

452: \bibitem[Quadri et al. (2007)]{quadri06} Quadri, R., et al. 2007, \aj, in press (astro-ph/0612612)

453: \bibitem[Springel \& Hernquist (2003)]{springel03} Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L. 2003, \mnras, 339, 312

454: \bibitem[Springel et al. (2001)]{springel01} Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., \& Kauffmann, G. 2001, \mnras, 328, 726

455: \bibitem[Springel et al. (2005)]{springel05} Springel, V., et al. 2005, \nat, 435, 629

456: \end{thebibliography}

457: 

458: \end{document}

459: 

460: